Steven John Hayden

Lord Filkin: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have received the report of the Security Commission on the case of Steven John Hayden.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Prime Minister announced on 30 April 1999 that, after consultation with the Chairman of the Security Commission and the right honourable Gentleman, he had asked the Security Commission to investigate the circumstances in which breaches of security had or might have occurred arising out of the case of Chief Petty Officer Steven Hayden, who was convicted on 23 October 1998 of offences under Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989; and to advise in the light of that investigation whether any change in security arrangements was necessary or desirable.
	The Commission has now submitted its report, which is being published this afternoon as a Command paper, with the exception of some details which it would not be in the public interest to publish on national security grounds. The Prime Minister is grateful to the Chairman, Lord Lloyd, and to Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Sir John Foley and Sir Clive Whitmore.
	It became apparent to the Commission at the start of the inquiry that the main issues at stake were in the area of personnel security. The Commission has fully examined the history of the Ministry of Defence's security assessment of Hayden. The Commission was critical of the decisions to continue to allow Hayden a security clearance and surprised at the lack of communication between the vetting authorities, the personnel authorities and line management about the management of the risk presented by him. In particular, they considered whether the correct balance was being struck between maintaining vetting confidentiality on the one hand and the effective involvement of line and personnel management in the active aftercare of vetting risk cases on the other.
	It was also concerned that recommendations made in earlier Security Commission inquiries had sought to address similar situations to those in the Hayden case which suggested that they had not been fully implemented.
	However, the Commission acknowledges the Ministry of Defence's acceptance that Hayden's case represents a clear failure in personnel security and welcomes the changes to vetting processes and procedures that the Ministry of Defence has already implemented based on the lessons learned. The Commission has made a number of recommendations. These, in summary, are that:
	(i) It should be standard practice for vetting authorities to consider whether to consult an individual's personnel or line managers, in order to ensure that the latter are aware of any particular vulnerabilities.
	(ii) In cases where doubts emerge, it should be normal practice for regular consultations to take place between all those involved in assessing a clearance. Where the recommendations of Investigating Officers seem likely to be overridden for wider policy considerations of a non-security kind, there should invariably be a discussion between them and those responsible for making the assessment, so that options can be explored before final decisions are reached.
	(iii) In risk cases where confidential medical reports exist on an individual, someone at an appropriately senior level should have the authority to see all the papers including a medical report on the individual's suitability to hold a DV clearance and thus be in a position to reach a proper assessment based on all relevant information.
	(iv) More emphasis should be given to threats outside the traditional risk of an individual being vulnerable to approaches from a hostile foreign intelligence service. Threats from cheque-book journalism and industrial espionage should be given more emphasis in the current Field Investigation Officers Guide issued by the Cabinet Office, and in departmental guidance based upon it.
	(v) The question of follow-up to Security Commission recommendations should be revisited to ensure that effective implementation of agreed recommendations take place.
	The recommendations of the Security Commission have been accepted in principle by the Government, subject to further consideration of some detailed points and, in the case of (iii), subject to discussion with the appropriate medical authorities. Work is now in hand to ensure that they are effectively implemented.

Statutory Instruments: Publication in Draft

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce the practice of publishing particularly significant instruments in draft so that they can be subjected to detailed comment by interested parties and members of both Houses of Parliament before being formally laid before Parliament.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Many significant statutory instruments are already published in draft for consultation. It is for individual departments to consider whether this is appropriate in any particular case.

Human Rights Joint Select Committee

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What is the procedure for selection for the post of legal adviser to the proposed Joint Select Committee on Human Rights.

Lord Boston of Faversham: The procedure for selecting a legal adviser to the proposed Joint Select Committee is that normally followed in making appointments in the two Houses and accords with the principles of advertisement, fair and open competition, merit and equal opportunity which are enshrined in the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. Following public advertisement, a shortlist of six candidates has been selected from the 53 applications received. An appointments board of five members (two senior officers from each House and an external assessor) will meet on 2 and 3 March to interview candidates and recommend to the Clerk of the Parliaments who should be appointed.

Human Rights Joint Select Committee

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Who was responsible for approving the terms of the public advertisement and the procedure for selection for the post of legal adviser to the proposed Joint Select Committee on Human Rights; and
	Whether the terms of the public advertisement and the procedure for the post of legal adviser to the proposed Joint Select Committee on Human Rights have been approved by the House of Lords.

Lord Boston of Faversham: Both the terms of the advertisement and the procedure for selection were approved by the Clerk of the Parliaments who, as Corporate Officer, is the employer of all House of Lords staff. The terms of the advertisement were based on a statement by the President of the Council in the House of Commons on 14 December 1998. The post of legal adviser was authorised by the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee on 13 July 1999.

Lord Chancellor: Judicial Sittings

Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On how many occasions in the calendar year 1999 the Lord Chancellor sat judicially, setting out the dates and titles of the causes respectively.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: I sat judicially on four occasions in 1999. The details are as follows:
	26 April 1999--Murray and Another (A.P.) v. Foyle Meats Ltd (N.I.)
	19 July 1999--Moddahl v. British Athletics Federation
	11-12 October 1999--Carmichael and another v. National Power plc
	6-7 November 1999--B (By his mother and next Friend) v. Director of Public Prosecutions

Law Officers: Appearances as Counsel in Court

Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many occasions in the calendar year 1999 (a) the Attorney General and (b) the Solicitor General appeared as counsel in court, setting out the dates and the courts (excluding appearances before Committees of either House of Parliament).

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The occasions on which the Law Officers appeared as counsel in the courts in 1999 are as follows:
	(a) Attorney-General
	Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom and others, application for interim measures (International Court of Justice, 10-12 May)
	Hashman and Harrup v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 23 June)
	R. v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene (House of Lords, 19-22 July)
	Sultan Khan v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 26 October)
	(b) Solicitor General
	R v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, ex parte Shepherd Neame Ltd. (Court of Appeal, 25-27 January)
	Hamilton v. Al Fayed (intervening on behalf of the Speaker and Authorities of the House of Commons) (Court of Appeal 8-9 March) (House of Lords, 6-7 October)
	R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (House of Lords 12-13 July)
	Director General of Fair Trading v. First National Bank plc (High Court 22 July)
	Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 20 October).

Organophosphates: Effects in Mice

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 1 February (WA 22), whether the results of the study of the long-term electrophysiological effects of sheep dip organophosphates in the mouse nervous system have been peer reviewed and published; if so, in which journal; and, if not, whether they will be.

Baroness Hayman: The following papers have been published, or submitted for publication, as a result of this study and it is understood that further data may be prepared for publication.
	G E de Blaquiere, L Waters, S S Kelly, P G Blain & F.M. Williams (1997). Acute effects of single doses of an organophosphorus compound, diazinon, on acetylcholinesterase activity and miniature endplate potentials in the mouse. Human and Experimental toxicology, 1997, 17, 56.
	G E de Blaquiere, L Waters, P G Blain & F M Williams (1999). Effects of single and repeated low doses of organophosphates in the mouse. Neurotoxicology 20 (in press).
	G E de Blaquiere, L Waters, P G Blain & F M Williams (1999). Electrophysiological and biochemical effects of single and multiple doses of the organophosphate, diazinon, in the mouse. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (submitted for publication).

Arable Area Payments Scheme: Field Margins

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is mandatory that they follow the new guidance received from the European Commission concerning the maximum width of field margins that is consistent with the use of full Ordnance Survey areas in claims under the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) under the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) rules; and what representations they have made to the European Commission on the adverse environmental effects of this new guidance.

Baroness Hayman: Failure to follow the guidance from the European Commission concerning the maximum width of field margins to which the noble Lord refers, or indeeed Commission guidance on other aspects of the rules for the farm-based aid schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy, risks the withholding of reimbursement of Exchequer expenditure from the EU budget. In the case of the guidance on field margins, this might also place in jeopardy the ability of our farmers to continue to claim payment, where appropriate, on the full Ordnance Survey areas of their fields.
	We are neverthelss concerned that this clarification of the AAPS rules might be detrimental to wildlife. We are currently analysing what effect it might have and evaluating the options for minimising any problems which may arise. MAFF's guidance urges farmers that, if they need to adjust the width of a field margin, they should seek advice on minimising the environmental impact of any such change.
	My right honourable friend the Minister discussed his concerns about the guidance, including the potential for adverse environmental implications, with the office of Commissioner Franz Fischler earlier this month and officials are pursuing these concerns with the European Commission.

Custodian of Enemy Property Palestine: Report

Lord Sewel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have completed their report on the Custodian of Enemy Property Palestine.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Boundary Commission: Forthcoming Review

Baroness David: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Boundary Commission for England intends to start the next general review of constituencies in England.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The commission has given notice of its intention to commence a general review forthwith. It is required to report between April 2003 and April 2007.

Charity Commission Annual Report

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to change the arrangements for the publication of the Charity Commission's Annual Report.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office (Mr Boateng) has agreed that in future the Charity Commission's Annual Report should be prepared on a financial year basis, rather than a calendar year basis. As a transitional measure, the next Annual Report will cover the 15-month period, 1 January 1999-31 March 2000, and should be published this autumn.

Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limits

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have for changes to the 1999-2000 departmental expenditure limits and running costs limits which come under the responsibility of the Home Office.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the departmental expenditure limit (DEL), which covers Class IV Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) and Vote 2 (Prisons, England and Wales), will be decreased by £71,496,000 from £7,763,444,000 to £7,691,948,000. The running cost limit will be decreased by £1,141,000 from £2,137,953,000 to £2,136,812,000. A separate running cost limit of £163,000 has been established for expenditure on Welfare to Work.
	The changes are the net effect of the following transfers: £60,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) towards the cost of the Teenage Pregnancy Implementation Unit; £500,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) for the publicity campaign costs on teenage pregnancy; £200,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1), £93,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service (Class V Vote 4) in relation to contributions towards the costs of the Integrated Business and Information Systems Unit; £1,000,000 from the Department for Education and Employment (Class I Vote 1) and £1,500,000 from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III Vote 1) in support of the Youth Inclusion Programme; £411,000 from the Welsh Assembly (Class XIV Vote 1) to support Closed Circuit Television projects in Wales; £20,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) for the development of a handbook for drug service commissioners; £25,000 from the Cabinet Office (Class XVII Vote 1) in relation to the transfer of posts from the security facilities division; £600,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Class VII Vote 1) as contribution towards two overseas drug prevention projects; £9,612,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of costs arising from the Kosovan humanitarian evacuation programmes; £176,000,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of asylum support costs; £3,980,000 to the Scottish Executive for asylum seekers' support arrangements; £233,000 to the Northern Ireland Office (Class XV Vote 1) in respect of legal services provided to the Northern Ireland Office; £56,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Class VII Vote 1) to cover the short-term attachment of the former Director of Operations (North) to the South African Department of Correctional Services; £45,000,000 from the DEL Reserve to fund the payment of special grant to local authorities for Kosovan evacuees. In addition, £300,000,000 in the DEL for asylum support costs has been reclassified as Annually Managed Expenditure.
	The decrease in the department's running costs limit is the net effect of the following transfers: £60,000 to the Department of Health towards the costs of the Teenage Pregnancy Implementation Unit; £200,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department and £93,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to contributions towards the costs of the Integrated Business and Information Systems Unit; £25,000 from the Cabinet Office in relation to the transfer of posts from the security facilities division; £8,500,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of asylum support costs; £233,000 to the Northern Ireland Office in respect of legal services provided to the Northern Ireland Office; £56,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to cover the short-term attachment of the former Director of Operations (North) to the South African Department of Correctional Services; £6,000,000 from the Prison Service's running costs to fund the issue of long-term loans to the Forensic Science Service; £3,722,000 from the Department Unallocated Provision (running costs element) to other current expenditure to fund the purchase of DNA services from the Forensic Science Service.
	These changes will be offset by transfers or a charge on the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Hereditary Peers: Voting Rights

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to lay the orders to enable hereditary Peers who no longer sit in Parliament to vote in parliamentary by-elections or general elections.[HL
	 Question number missing in Hansard, possibly truncated question.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Holders of Hereditary Peerages (Extension of the Franchise) (Transitional Provisions) Order 1999 (1999/3322) was laid before Parliament on 21 December 1999 and came into force on 16 January 2000. Its effect is to enable hereditary Peers who are no longer members of the House of Lords to appear on the new register of parliamentary electors which comes into force on 16 February 2000.

NHS Charge Increases

Lord Tomlinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to increase National Health Service charges and the value of optical vouchers.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We shall lay before the House regulations to increase National Health Service charges in England from 1 April 2000. There will be a cash increase in the charge of 10p (1.69 per cent) from £5.90 to £6.00 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed.
	The cost of prescription prepayment certificates will rise to £31.40 for a 4-month certificate and £86.20 for an annual certificate. These offer savings for those needing more than five items in four months or 14 in one year.
	Prescription charges are expected to raise some £380 million for the NHS in 2000-01.
	Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and most fabric supports supplied through the Hospital Service will be increased similarly.
	The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 2000 will increase from £348 to £354. Only about one in every 1,000 courses of treatment will attract the new maximum charge.
	The increases are in line with the movement of the Retail Price Index from January 1999 (the benchmark for the current charge) to November 1999 of 2 per cent but rounded to the most convenient unit. Movements in the Retail Price Index from November to November will become the benchmark for any subsequent charges increases within the three-year period following the Comprehensive Spending Review.
	Optical voucher values in England will increase overall by 2 per cent. to help children, people on low income and certain people with complex sight problems with the cost of spectacles or contact lenses.
	NHS charges and optical voucher values in Scotland and Wales are a matter for the devolved administrations. However, I can inform you that these proposals have been considered jointly with the Secretary for Health and Social Services to the National Assembly for Wales who tells me she will be putting forward parallel proposals for consideration by the Assembly.
	Details of the revised charges have been placed in the Library.

Hospital Patient Resuscitation Guidelines

Baroness Miller of Hendon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the "national guidelines" adopted in National Health Service hospitals for soliciting "do not resuscitate" instructions from elderly but apparently mentally competent patients; and
	What age and degrees of infirmity and clinical appropriateness are the parameters under the "national guidelines" for seeking "do not resuscitate" instructions from patients; and
	In the case of elderly patients not considered fully mentally competent, what degree of consultation with patients' close families the "national guidelines" require before "do not resuscitate" instructions are implemented; and what requirements there are for the intervention of an independent social worker to safeguard patients having no close family support; and
	Who issued the "national guidelines" as used in the National Health Service hospitals on the solicitation of "do not resuscitate" instructions from elderly patients or their close families; and when; and
	When and where the "national guidelines" on the solicitation of "do not resuscitate" instructions were published; and
	What consultation took place before the "national guidelines" on the solicitation of "do not resuscitate" instructions were published and with whom; and when and where the guidelines were publicly debated, whether before or after publication.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Applicable guidelines on Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation were first published in 1993 in a joint statement issued by the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the Royal College of Nursing. A revised version was published in June 1999. The joint statement gives only general guidelines on the basic principles within which decisions regarding local policies on cardiopulmonary resuscitation may be formulated. It makes clear that all acute hospital trusts should establish local resuscitation policies. The wider ethical context on end of life decisions (of which cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an example) is contained in the BMA guidelines on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-prolonging Medical Treatment.
	One of the basic principles of healthcare is that a competent patient has the right under common law to give or withhold consent to examination or treatment. The guidelines suggest that where competent patients are at risk of cardiac or respiratory failure, or have a terminal illness, there should be sensitive exploration of their wishes regarding resuscitation.
	In the case of patients who are not capable of consenting to treatment, and in the absence of a valid advance refusal of treatment, it is a doctor's duty to act in the best interests of the patient concerned. The overall responsibility for "do not resuscitate" decisions rests with the doctor in charge of the patient's care. Before making a "do not resuscitate" decision, an assessment is made of the patient's best interests and the guidelines specify that this assessment should include consultation with other members of the health care team and, where appropriate, relatives or those close to the patient. However, the latter cannot determine a patient's best interest nor give consent to or refuse treatment on a patient's behalf. Although the guidelines suggest that resuscitation decisions should be subject to audit, the involvement of an independent party in individual decisions is not specifically required.
	The guidelines recognise that the decision arrived at in the care of one patient may be inappropriate in a superficially similar case. "Do not resuscitate" decisions should therefore be reached on a case by case basis. Thus a blanket "do not resuscitate" policy based on a specific patient group (for example, elderly patients) would neither be appropriate nor acceptable.
	Consultation on the guidelines is a matter for the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the Royal College of Nursing, which were responsible for its development.

Department of Health Expenditure Limit

Baroness Howells of St Davids: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to amend the Department of Health departmental expenditure limit/running cost limit for 1999-2000.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Subject to paraliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class II, Votes 1 and 2 the Department of Health Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999-2000 will be increased by £302,308,000 from £40,455,019,000 to £40,757,327,000. The increase is the net effect of changes to Class II, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) of £261,646,000 made up of £113,671,000 in respect of the take-up of end year flexibility for NHS trusts, £134,000,000 from the reserve for the cost of generic drugs and clinical negligence claims and £14,000,000 from the capital modernisation fund. In addition, the following transfers will take place; £1,094,000 from Northern Ireland for out of area treatments; £177,000 from the National Assembly for Wales general practitioner drug costs and £155,000 from Class III, Vote 1 (Environment, Transport and the Regions: Housing, construction, regeneration, countryside and wildlife, England) for the Victoria Pilot Project. The overall increase is partially offset by transfers of £1,250,000 to Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) for the road traffic accident element of the Compensation Recovery Unit; £190,000 to Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scottish Executive) for student bursaries and £11,000 to Class XIV, Vote 1 (National Assembly for Wales) for the Dental Service Increment for Teaching.
	The increase of £40,662,000 for Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health, administration miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) is the net effect of transfers (detailed below) and £16,460,000 take-up of end year flexibility (as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July (Official Report col. 393) and £25,000,000 for claims in respect of asylum seekers grant; £580,000 (£60,000 running costs) from Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office: administration, police, immigration and other services, England and Wales) for teenage pregnancy unit, publicity and drug project development work; £60,000 (running costs) from Class I, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services), £60,000 (running costs) from Class III, Vote 5 (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration) and £60,000 (running costs) from Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) for the teenage pregnancy unit; £67,000 (running costs) from Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scotland and transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund) for the National Screening Committee; £4,000 (running costs) from Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland for the National Screening Committee and Human Genetics Commission. The overall increase is partially offset by transfers of £1,629,000 (£138,000 running costs) to Class X, Vote 2 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) for BSE Inquiry costs.
	The department's gross running cost limit will be decreased by £117,000 from £280,450,000 to £280,333,000, made up of an increase of £173,000 (detailed above) offset by and a transfer from DH DEL to programme expenditure of £290,000 for surveys and research.
	The external finance limit for NHS trusts has decreased by £122,596,000 (£50,000,000 non-Voted) from £166,596,000 to £44,000,000.
	All increases will either be offset by transfers to or from other departmental expenditure limits (detailed above) or charges to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Regional Eurostar Services

Lord Tomlinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have received the consultant's report they commissioned on regional Eurostar services.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Arthur D Little's report on regional Eurostar services is published today. We have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The report considers whether Eurostar services directly serving the English regions and Scotland would be financially viable, and what wider transport and social benefits they would bring. The consultants consulted widely with local and regional authorities and groups. The report provides an independent assessment of the costs and impacts of a range of options.
	Under Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, the British Railways Board, now part of the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority, has a duty to prepare a plan for regional international rail services. The board is now reviewing its 1989 plan. It will no doubt wish to consider the Arthur D Little report in that review, which it expects to conclude in early summer. In the longer term, the Strategic Rail Authority will have a duty to produce a strategy for services in various parts of Great Britain for facilitating the carriage of passengers by way of the Channel Tunnel.
	We are today giving the go-ahead for Eurostar UK Limited to lease some of the regional trains to GNER for a limited period for additional services on the East Coast Main Line. This will allow regional passengers to enjoy an immediate benefit from the investment made in these trains while leaving open future options for the use of the trains for regional Eurostar services. This arrangement accords with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that leasing to a domestic rail operator should be considered while decisions on regional Eurostar services were under review.

Merchant Shipping Regulations

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 7 February (WA 67), what are the reasons for the continuing delay in replying substantively to the Question for Written Answer by Lord Lester of Herne Hill of 7 December 1999 (HL277) concerning the publication of documents on the background to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and regulations made under it.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I regret the delay in replying substantively to the noble Lord's Question. My department is reviewing the position of the documents (which are voluminous) and consulting other interested departments. I will write to the noble Lord as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

Questions for Written Answer

Lord Harris of Greenwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why three Questions tabled in December 1999 had not received replies by 2 February 2000.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government take very seriously this responsibility to ensure that noble Lords who table parliamentary Questions (PQs) receive considered and accurate Answers within the agreed time limit of 14 days, and they endeavour to meet that target where possible.
	However, some PQs, particularly those that raise complex issues that require input from two or more government departments, or that require the collation of information from a number of sources, can take longer. Of the three Questions you refer to, two, HL277 and HL255, fell into this category. An administrative mix-up delayed the answering of the other, HL398.
	I am pleased to say that full Answers have now been provided to all three.

Civil Service and Public Sector Employee Numbers

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the number of home civil and public servants; and what is the cost to the United Kingdom of preparing and implementing European Union legislation including the costs of setting up enforcement agencies, whether self-financing or fully or partly financed by the public purse.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: At 1 April 1999 481,000 permanent staff were employed in the UK Civil Service (460,000 on a full-time equivalent basis). The latest figure available for the whole of the UK public sector is for 1998 and shows that 5,002,000 people were employed (4,110,000 on a full-time equivalent basis). Of these, 484,000 were permanent civil servants (463,000 on a full-time equivalent basis).
	Information on the cost to the UK of preparing and implementing EU legislation is not held centrally.

Strategic Communications Unit

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why there has been a projected 35 per cent. increase in the running costs of the Strategic Communications Unit from 1998-99 to 1999-2000; and what proportion of the additional cost can be attributed to the input to the Unit by special advisers.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The cost of the Strategic Communications Unit has risen for various reasons, including the improvements to the No 10 website. The number and role of special advisers in the unit remains unchanged.

Special Advisers

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures are in place to ensure that special advisers comply fully with the terms of the Civil Service code, their model contracts and the guidance on the work of the Government Information and Communication Service.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The responsibility for ensuring that civil servants--including special advisers--comply with the terms and conditions of their employment rests with their employing department.

Special Advisers

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether special advisers are subject to the terms of paragraph 27 of the ministerial code; and, if so, whether they are satisfied that special advisers are complying adequately with it.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No. The ministerial code is a code of conduct and guidance on procedures for Ministers. Decisions on the timing and content of announcements of government policy are taken by Ministers, not special advisers.

Special Advisers

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 8 February (WA 77) that "The total cost to date for staff at 10 Downing Street is £3.9 million", whether that figure includes the cost of special advisers within 10 Downing Street; and, if so, what proportion is attributable to the cost of special advisers; and
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 8 February (WA 77) that "The total cost to date for staff at 10 Downing Street is £3.9 million", to what period the phrase "to date" refers.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The cost of £3.9 million, of which £1.2 million is the cost of special advisers, covers the period 1 April to 31 December 1999.

Conservative Party Tax Policy

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government.
	On what basis the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 February at Question Time in the House of Commons claimed that Lord Lamont of Lerwick had described the Conservative Party tax guarantee as "irresponsible".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I refer the noble Lord to pages 184-185, in the section entitled "Disagreements with the PM on tax", of his own book In Office:
	"At a morning press conference . . . I was sitting next to John Major and whispered to him . . . that we should not make any commitment because the tax burden was difficult to control. Nonetheless Major insisted on saying that in the course of the next Parliament the tax burden would be reduced. That would have required a drastic reduction in the size and role of the state. I was somewhat uneasy about this promise, particularly given John Major's views on public spending.
	At another press conference John was asked about the 20 pence tax band in the Budget, and he promised that the Government would expand the band of income to which this applied year by year. This commitment to cut taxes every year was certainly something that no party in power could responsibly promise. He and I had in fact discussed this very point, and I had emphasised that no government could possibly commit to cutting taxes every year. I was even more surprised that someone who had been opposed to the principle of tax cuts was now prepared to promise them every year."

Spoliation Advisory Panel

Lord Sewel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish proposals for the establishment of a panel to advise on cases of works of art which may have been looted during the Nazi World War II era.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very pleased to be able to announce that the right honourable Sir David Hirst has agreed to chair a Spoliation Advisory Panel to consider and advise on claims from anyone who lost possession of a cultural object during the Nazi era where such an object is now in the possession of a UK national collection or in the possession of another UK museum or gallery established for the public benefit.
	The draft terms of reference for the Panel are set out below and I am now inviting interested organisations and individuals to let me have their views before these are finalised. SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL DRAFT CONSTITUTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE Members of the Panel
	1. The members of the Spoliation Advisory Panel ("the Panel") will be appointed by the Secretary of State on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. The Secretary of State shall appoint one member as Chairman of the Panel. Resources for the Panel
	2. The Secretary of State will make available such resources as he considers necessary to enable the Panel to carry out its functions, including administrative support provided by a Secretriat ("the Secretariat"). Functions of the Panel
	3. The task of the Panel is to consider claims from anyone (or from any one or more of their heirs), who lost possession of a cultural object ("the object") during the Nazi era, where such object is now in the possession of a UK national collection or in the possession of another UK museum or gallery established for the public benefit ("the institution"). The Panel shall advise the claimant and the institution on what would be appropriate action to take in response to such a claim. The Panel shall also be available to advise about any claim for an item in a private collection at the joint request of the claimant and the owner.
	4. In an appropriate case the Panel may also advise the Secretary of State.
	(a) on what action should be taken in relation to general issues raised by the claim, and/or
	(b) where it considers that the circumstances of the particular claim warrant it, on what action should be taken in relation to that claim. Performance of the Panel's functions
	5. In performing the functions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4, the Panel's paramount purpose shall be to achieve a solution which is fair and just both to the claimant and to the institution.
	6. For this purpose the Panel shall:
	(a) make such factual and legal inquiries, (including the seeking of advice about legal matters, about cultural objects and about valuation of such objects) as the Panel consider appropriate to assess each claim as comprehensively as possible;
	(b) assess all information and material submitted by or on behalf of the claimant and the institution or any other person, or otherwise provided or known to the Panel;
	(c) examine and determine the circumstances in which the claimant was deprived of the object, whether by theft, forced sale, sale at an undervalue, or otherwise;
	(d) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the claimant's original title to the object, bearing in mind the difficulties of providing such title after the destruction of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the duration of the period which has elapsed since the claimant lost possession of the object;
	(e) give due weight to the moral strength of the claimant's case;
	(f) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the institution's title to the object;
	(g) consider whether any moral obligation rests on the institution taking into account in particular the circumstances of its acquisition of the object, and its knowledge at that juncture of the object's provenance;
	(h) take account of any relevant statutory provisions, including stipulations as to the institution's objectives, and any restrictions on its power of disposal;
	(i) take account of the terms of any trust instrument regulating the powers and duties of the trustees of the institution, and give appropriate weight to their fiduciary duties;
	(j) where appropriate, assess the current market value of the object, and
	(k) formulate and submit to the claimant, the institution and the Secretary of State, its advice in a written report, giving reasons.
	Scope of Advice
	7. If the Panel upholds the claim in principle, it may recommend either:
	(a) the return of the object to the claimant, or
	(b) the payment of compensation to the claimant, the amount being in the discretion of the Panel having regard to all relevant circumstances, and not tied to the current market value, or
	(c) an ex gratia payment to the claimant, or
	(d) the display alongside the object of an account of its history and provenance during and since the Nazi era, with special reference to the claimant's interest therein; and
	(e) that negotiations should be conducted with the successful claimant in order to implement such a recommendation as expeditiously as possible.
	8. Where the Panel considers it appropriate to advise the Secretary of State under paragraph 4(a), it may make such recommendations in relation to general issues raised by the claim as it considers fit.